DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 460 of 17.11.2016

                                      Decided on:                    25.5.2017

Harpreet Singh son of Surinder Singh, resident of House No.415,C/1, Rattan Nagar, Tripuri, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Micromax House, 90 B, Sector-18, Gurgaon through authorized representative.
2. Manshul Telecom, # 862, Gol Gappa Chownk, Tripuri Town, Patiala.
3. Micromax Service Centre, B1, Ranjit Plaza, adjoining Hotel Jiwan Plaza, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member          

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Pankaj Verma,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite parties No.1to 3 ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone,  make Micromax Canvas-Nitro of black colour from Op no.2 on 1.9.2015, for an amount of Rs.10,000/-.It is averred that after a period of 2 months, the said mobile phone started giving problem and the complainant approached OP no.2 who directed the complainant to contact OP no.3 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company. The complainant approached OP no.3, who updated the software of the mobile phone and returned the mobile phone to the complainant.After updating the software, the mobile phone worked properly for 6-7 months and after that the same problem again occurred in the said mobile phone and the complainant contacted OP no.3 on 10.6.2016 and deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3 who told the complainant to come again on the next day. On 11.2.2016, the complainant visited OP no.3 and OP no.3 told the complainant that his mobile phone was dead and as such it was not repairable. OP no.3 assured the complainant that as and when the new mobile phone came from the company , it will inform the complainant and will hand over the new mobile phone to the complainant. On 29.7.2016, the complainant received a telephonic call from the service centre to collect the mobile phone.When the complainant reached the service centre, one person took the mobile phone from the complainant and handed over another mobile phone  to the complainant. It is further averred that instead of giving a new mobile phone to the complainant, that person gave an old mobile phone to the complainant whose IMEI number did not match  with the IMEI number of complainant’s mobile phone. The complainant also sent e-mails to the company but to no use. On 13.8.2016, the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs but the OPs failed to respond to the legal notice. As a result, the complainant underwent a lot of mental tension as well as physical harassment and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and his counsel closed the evidence.
4. The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP no.2 on 10.9.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,000/-.Ex.C2 is the job sheet dated 10.6.2016, vide which the complainant deposited the mobile with the service centre i.e.OP no.3.After going through Ex.C2, it is observed that the mobile phone was purchased by Sh.Harpreet Singh but the job sheet is in the name of Sh.Harjit Singh and the IMEI number of the mobile phone is also shown as ‘INUALID-IMEI’, which shows that this job sheet does not pertain to the mobile phone purchased by the complainant. The counsel for the complainant has  argued that the OP no.3 had told the complainant that his mobile phone was dead and as such it was irrepairable but the complainant has failed to produce on record any documentary evidence which may show that the defect in the mobile phone in question was irrepairable.The counsel for the complainant further argued that the mobile phone was replaced on 29.7.2016 but the complainant has failed to prove the said fact too. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OPs.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the complaint of the complainant is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:25.5.2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER